Sunteți pe pagina 1din 11

298 Malayan Law Journal [2014] 7 MLJ

Sherinna Nur Elena bt Abdullah v Kent Well Edar Sdn Bhd A

HIGH COURT (KOTA KINABALU) — SUIT NO K22–187–2009-I


STEPHEN CHUNG JC B
25 FEBRUARY 2011

Civil Procedure — Locus standi — What constituted locus standi — Photograph C


and images of claimant displayed on advertisements — Claim for injunction and
damages — Whether claimant was rightful owner of photograph — Whether
claimant had locus standi — Rules of the High Court 1980 O 33 r 2

D
Copyright — Infringement — Whether there was infringement — Claimant was
a beauty queen before converting to Islam — Now sporting headscarf as part of
religious practise — Photographs of claimant during days as beauty queen
appearing on advertisements — Whether claimant’s rights to privacy infringed —
Whether claimant was rightful owner of photograph
E
The plaintiff was a beauty queen between the years of 1992–1994. However,
she had converted to Islam in 1995 and as part of her religious practise, sported
a headscarf. In 2008, the plaintiff discovered that her photographs and images
appeared on the packaging of the defendant’s products, particularly packages of F
rice being displayed and sold in various retail shops, grocery stores,
supermarkets, hypermarkets and an advertisement board in Kota Kinabalu.
The plaintiff thus averred that she had rights to privacy and claimed to be the
rightful owner of the copyright of her own photograph and image and that the
defendant had violated her rights to privacy and infringed the copyright. The G
plaintiff further submitted that she had been greatly injured in her credit,
character and reputation by the defendant’s flagrant disregard of her rights to
privacy and claimed for an injunction, RM1m being the damages caused by the
infringement and for exemplary or aggravated damages to be assessed. This was
an application by the defendant pursuant to O 33 r 2 of the Rules of the High H
Court 1980 to determine whether the plaintiff had the locus standi to bring
and maintain this action.

Held, allowing the application by the defendant and dismissing the plaintiff ’s
claim with costs: I
(1) The plaintiff was not the photographer or author of the photograph or
image which was used by the defendant on its products. The plaintiff did
not claim that she arranged or took or produced the photograph or
image. If the plaintiff was the owner of the copyright by virtue of her
Sherinna Nur Elena bt Abdullah v Kent Well Edar Sdn Bhd
[2014] 7 MLJ (Stephen Chung JC) 299

A being in the photograph or image, then the other two women who also
appeared in the photograph would also be the owners of the copyright in
the photograph or image. However, they were not the parties to this suit
and the plaintiff had not established that they have assigned their rights
to her or have agreed to her to take up this suit against the defendant for
B infringement of the copyright purportedly jointly owned by them with
the plaintiff (see para 17).
(2) The Sabah Tourism Board was the owner of the copyright or had the
permission from the author or owner to publish the photograph or image
in the book. That would effectively exclude the plaintiff to be the owner
C
of the copyright and the right to sue for infringement of the copyright
(see para 18).
(3) Neither the plaintiff nor the defendant had identified the photographer
or author of the photograph or image. The plaintiff did not exhibit any
D agreement or affidavit or declaration to show that she had been assigned
or licensed and was the owner of the copyright in the photograph or
image to entitle her to sue the defendant for infringement of copyright
(see para 19).
(4) Section 37(1) of the Copyright Act 1987 provides that infringements of
E
copyright shall be actionable at the suit of the owner of the copyright.
Since the plaintiff had not shown that she was the owner of the copyright
in the photograph or image used by the defendant, she could not sue and
had no locus standi to sue the defendant for infringements of the
copyright (see para 20).
F
(5) Although the plaintiff was at liberty to sue the defendant for invasion of
her privacy, however, the defendant did not intrude onto private property
and took the photographs of the plaintiff without her consent. The
photographs were taken many years ago by someone else at beauty
G pageants where she participated willingly as a contestant and in public. It
was not a private affair on a private property. The photographs were also
not offensive. The plaintiff did not complain then that she had been
humiliated or ridiculed or was scandalised by the photograph or image
(see para 26).
H
[Bahasa Malaysia summary
Plaintif adalah ratu cantik di antara tahun 1992-1994. Walau bagaimanapun,
dia telah memeluk agama Islam pada tahun 1995 dan telah memakai tudung
yang menjadi sebahagian tuntutan agamanya. Pada tahun 2008, plaintif
I mendapati bahawa fotonya dan imej tertera atas bungkusan barangan
defendan, terutamanya paket-paket beras yang diatur susun dan dijual di
pelbagai kedai runcit, kedai barang-barang runcit, pasaraya, pasaraya besar dan
papan iklan di Kota Kinabalu. Plaintif oleh itu berhujah bahawa dia
mempunyai hak kepada privasi dan menuntut sebagai tuan punya berhak
300 Malayan Law Journal [2014] 7 MLJ

kepada hak cipta foto-fotonya dan imej sendiri dan bahawa defendan telah A
mencabul hak privasinya dan melanggar hak cipta. Plaintif selanjutnya
berhujah bahawa kredit, peribadi dan reputasinya telah terjejas teruk oleh sikap
tidak endah secara terang-terangan defendan terhadap hak kepada privasinya
dan menuntut untuk injunksi, RM1 juta sebagai ganti rugi disebabkan oleh
pelanggaran dan untuk ganti rugi teladan dan tambahan ditaksir. Ini adalah B
permohonan oleh defendan berikutan A 33 k 2 Kaedah-Kaedah Mahkamah
Tinggi 1980 untuk menentukan sama ada plaintif mempunyai locus standi
untuk membawa dan mengekalkan tindakan ini.

Diputuskan, membenarkan permohonan oleh defendan dan menolak C


tuntutan plaintif dengan kos:
(1) Plaintif bukan jurugambar atau orang yang mengambil photo atau imej
yang digunakan oleh defendan atas barangannya. Plaintif tidak
mendakwa dia yang menguruskan atau mengambil atau menerbitkan D
foto atau imej tersebut. Jika plaintif adalah pemilik hak cipta berikutan
dia yang tertera dalam foto atau imej tersebut, oleh itu dua lagi wanita
yang juga tertera di dalam foto juga akan menjadi pemilik hak cipta atau
imej. Walau bagaimanapun, mereka bukan pihak di dalam tindakan ini
dan plaintif tidak membuktikan yang mereka telah meletakkan hak E
mereka kepadanya atau bersetuju untuk mengambil tindakan ini
terhadap defendan untuk pelanggaran hak cipta yang dianggap dimiliki
bersama oleh mereka dengan plaintif (lihat perenggan 17).
(2) Lembaga Pelancongan Sabah adalah pemilik hak cipta atau mempunyai
F
kebenaran untuk menerbitkan foto atau imej di dalam buku. Ini akan
secara jelas mengecualikan plaintif menjadi pemilik hak cipta dan hak
untuk menyaman untuk pelanggaran hak cipta (lihat perenggan 18).
(3) Kedua-dua plaintif dan defendan tidak mengenalpasti jurugambar atau
orang yang mengambil foto atau imej. Plaintif tidak melampirkan G
apa-apa perjanjian atau afidavit atau deklarasi untuk menunjukkan yang
dia telah diletakhakkan atau diberi lesen dan adalah pemilik hak cipta
dalam foto atau imej untuk memberikan dia hak untuk menyaman
defendan kerana pelanggaran hak cipta tersebut (lihat perenggan 19).
H
(4) Seksyen 37(1) Akta Hak Cipta 1987 memperuntukkan bahawa
pelanggaran hak cipta boleh diambil tindakan oleh pemilik hak cipta.
Memandangkan plaintif tidak menunjukkan yang dia adalah pemilik
hak cipta di dalam foto atau imej yang digunakan oleh defendan, dia
tidak boleh menyaman dan tiada locus standi untuk menyaman I
defendan untuk pelanggaran hak cipta (lihat perenggan 20).
(5) Walaupun plaintif bebas untuk menyaman defendan bagi pelanggaran
privasinya, defendan bagaimanapun tidak menganggu ke atas harta
persendirian dan mengambil foto plaintif tanpa kebenarannya. Foto
Sherinna Nur Elena bt Abdullah v Kent Well Edar Sdn Bhd
[2014] 7 MLJ (Stephen Chung JC) 301

A diambil beberapa tahun yang lalu oleh orang lain di pertandingan ratu
cantik di mana dia telah mengambil bahagian dengan rela sebagai peserta
dan di khalayak ramai. Ia bukan hal persendirian di tempat persendirian.
Foto juga tidak provokatif. Plaintif tidak membuat aduan yang dia
diaibkan atau diejek atau dimalukan dengan foto atau imej tersebut (lihat
B perenggan 26).]

Notes
For a case on what constituted locus standi, see 2(3) Mallal’s Digest (4th Ed,
2012 Reissue) para 5629.
C For cases on whether there was infringement, see 3(3) Mallal’s Digest (4th Ed,
2013 Reissue) paras 7056–7057.

Cases referred to
Australian Broadcasting Corp v Lenah Game Meats Pty Ltd [2001] HCA 63, HC
D (refd)
Douglas v Hello! Ltd [2001] 2 WLR 992, CA (refd)
Federal Insurance Co v Nakano Singapore (Pte) Ltd [1992] 1 SLR 390, CA (refd)
Hellewell v Chief Constable of Derbyshire [1995] 1 WLR 804, QBD (refd)
Lee Ewe Poh v Dr Lim Teik Man & Anor [2011] 1 MLJ 835; [2010] 1 LNS
E 1162, HC (refd)
Maslinda bt Ishak v Mohd Tahir bin Osman & Ors [2009] 6 MLJ 826; [2009] 6
CLJ 653, CA (refd)
Mohd Ramly Ismail v Sarimah Film Production Sdn Bhd & Anor [1984] 1 CLJ
105, HC (refd)
F OBG Ltd v Allan; Douglas v Hello! Ltd (No 3); Mainstream Properties v Young
[2008] 1 AC 1, HL (refd)
Ultra Dimension Sdn Bhd v Ketua Pengarah, Lembaga Penggalakan Pelancongan
Malaysia & Ors [2010] 8 CLJ 245, HC (refd)
G
Ultra Dimension Sdn Bhd v Kook Wei Kuan [2001] MLJU 751; [2004] 5 CLJ
285, HC (refd)

Legislation referred to
Copyright Act 1987 ss 7(1)(c), 10(1), 26, 37(1)
H
Rules of the High Court 1980 O 33 r 2
Suziana Saulkman (Mahap Jelani & Co) for the plaintiff.
Peter Lee (Lee & Associates) for the defendant.

Stephen Chung JC:


I

[1] This is an application by the defendant pursuant to O 33 r 2 of the Rules


of the High Court 1980 to determine the question whether the plaintiff has the
legal standing or locus standi to bring and maintain this action and upon the
302 Malayan Law Journal [2014] 7 MLJ

question being determined in the negative for a consequential order that this A
action be dismissed with costs. The parties have agreed to proceed by way of
affidavit evidence, there being no disputes of facts.

[2] The grounds of the application are that the copyright in the photograph
of the plaintiff and of the image or print created belongs to the Unduk Ngadau B
Association of Kota Kinabalu who had organised the ‘Unduk Ngadau’ beauty
pageant during the Harvest Festival in 1992 and to the photographer who was
commissioned to take the photograph and create its image or print. They did
not belong to or is not owned by the plaintiff.
C
[3] The facts of the case are as follows. The plaintiff now resides in Kuala
Lumpur. Between 1992–1994, the plaintiff was a beauty queen. The plaintiff
had won several beauty pageant titles in the State of Sabah, as the second
runner-up for the ‘Unduk Ngadau’ beauty pageant held during the Harvest
Festival in 1992 organised by the Unduk Ngadau Association in Kota D
Kinabalu, Sabah and as Miss Sabah China Town in 1992. The plaintiff also
represented the State of Sabah as the Miss Sabah Universe Malaysia at the
national level in 1993/1994 where the plaintiffs won several subsidiary titles.
E
[4] In November 2008, the plaintiff returned to Kota Kinabalu and
discovered that her photographs and image appeared on the packaging of the
defendant’s products, particularly packages of rice being displayed and sold in
various retail shops, grocery stores, supermarkets and hypermarkets in Kota
Kinabalu. The plaintiff also discovered that her photograph and image on the F
defendant’s packagings appeared on a large advertisement board located at
Jalan Sentral Sepanggar/Sulaman, Kota Kinabalu, Sabah.

[5] The plaintiff avers that she has rights to privacy and is the rightful owner
of the copyright of her own photograph and image. The plaintiff avers that she G
has never authorised nor granted any permission or license to the defendant to
reproduce or to deal in any way whatsoever the plaintiff ’s photograph and
image.

[6] The plaintiff avers that the defendant has violated her rights to privacy H
and infringed the copyright by reproducing and authorising, whether by the
defendant themselves or by their servants or agents or otherwise howsoever, the
reproduction, including publishing, advertising and printing of the plaintiff ’s
photograph and image on the defendant’s products and for the defendant’s
gainful and commercial purposes. I
Sherinna Nur Elena bt Abdullah v Kent Well Edar Sdn Bhd
[2014] 7 MLJ (Stephen Chung JC) 303

A [7] The plaintiff avers that she was married in 1995 and converted to Islam.
The plaintiff avers that she has decided to withdraw from the beauty pageant
industry and as a Muslim she wears headscarf (‘tudung’) as her daily religious
practice. The plaintiff avers that the defendant has violated her rights to her
personal and religious values and principles and has also invaded her rights to
B publicity privacy.

[8] The plaintiff avers that she has been greatly injured in her credit,
character and reputation by the defendant’s flagrant disregard of her rights to
privacy. The plaintiff has instructed her solicitors Messrs Mahap Jelani & Co to
C issue three notices of demand dated 14 April 2009, 19 May 2009 and 30 June
2009 respectively to the defendant demanding the defendant to remove the
publication, advertisement and printing of the photograph or image of the
plaintiff and demanding damages of RM1,000,000.
D [9] The plaintiff files this action for an injunction, RM1,000,000 being
damages caused by the infringement and for exemplary or aggravated damages
to be assessed.

[10] The defendant denies any liability and avers that the copyright to all
E
photographs taken of her and any print so created are owned by the organiser
the Unduk Ngadau Association or the photographer who took them. Similarly,
the copyright to all photographs taken of her in the Miss Sabah China Town
and the Miss Sabah Universe Malaysia contests and any print so created are
owned by their organisers or the photographers who took them respectively
F
and not by the plaintiff as alleged or at all.

[11] In the further alternative, the defendant avers that if (which is denied)
the copyright subsisted in the print in the defendant’s packages and the
G advertisement board, the defendant does not admit to any infringement of any
copyright because at the time the defendant was not aware and had no
reasonable grounds for suspecting that any copyright subsisted in the print.

[12] The defendant avers that at all material times the defendant neither
H knew nor was acquainted with the plaintiff and had no knowledge of her
personal and religious values and principles whatsoever as alleged.

[13] The defendant avers that the plaintiff has no rights to publicity privacy
and privacy which are not known in Malaysian laws. As such, the defendant
I denies any invasion of those alleged rights. The defendant avers that the
plaintiff lacks the locus standi to bring this action against the defendant.
304 Malayan Law Journal [2014] 7 MLJ

[14] Order 33 r 2 provides that the court may order any question or issue A
arising in a cause or matter, whether of fact or law or partly of fact and partly of
law, and whether raised by the pleadings or otherwise, to be tried before, at or
after the trial of the cause or matter, and may give directions as to the manner
in which the question or issue shall be stated. As a general rule the court will not
exercise its power under O 33 r 2 to order a preliminary point of law to be tried B
whether or not that point involves the prior determination of factual disputes
affecting that point, unless the trial of that issue will result in a substantial
saving of time and costs in respect of the trial of the action: Federal Insurance Co
v Nakano Singapore (Pte) Ltd [1992] 1 SLR 390.
C
[15] Section 7(1)(c) of the Copyright Act 1987 provides that artistic works
shall be eligible for copyright. ‘Artistic work’ is defined in s 3 of the Act to mean
(a) a graphic work, photograph, sculpture or collage, irrespective of artistic
quality. Therefore a photograph or photographic image is eligible for D
copyright. Section 10(1) provides that copyright shall subsist in every work
eligible for copyright of which the author or in the case of joint authorship, any
of the authors is, at the time when the work is made, a qualified person. A
‘qualified person’ is defined in s 3 of the Act ‘(a) in relation to an individual,
means a person who is a citizen of, or a permanent resident in, Malaysia; and E
(b) in relation to a body corporate, means a body corporate established in
Malaysia and constituted or vested with legal personality under the laws of
Malaysia’. And under s 3 of the Act, ‘author’ is defined as ‘(d) in relation to
photographs, means the person by whom the arrangements for the taking of
the photographs were undertaken’. F

[16] Under copyright law, a person who creates a piece of work such as a
poem, a play, a photograph or a painting is the author and usually the owner of
the copyright in the piece of work. Where the piece of work is created within
the scope of and in the course of his employment, the copyright vests in his G
employer subject to any contract affecting such ownership: see s 26 of the
Copyright Act 1987. The burden is on the plaintiff to prove authorship in the
photograph or image. To establish infringement of copyright, there must be
two elements of sufficient objective similarity between the infringing work and
the copyright work and that the copyright work must be the source from which H
the infringing work is derived: Mohd Ramly Ismail v Sarimah Film Production
Sdn Bhd & Anor [1984] 1 CLJ 105.

[17] In the instant case, the plaintiff was not the photographer or author of
the photograph or image which was used by the defendant on its products. The I
plaintiff did not claim that she arranged or took or produced the photograph or
image. What she has said in her affidavits are that she verily believe that she is
one of the three women shown in the photograph or image and she was advised
by her solicitors and verily believe that she is the rightful owner of her
Sherinna Nur Elena bt Abdullah v Kent Well Edar Sdn Bhd
[2014] 7 MLJ (Stephen Chung JC) 305

A photograph or image which appeared on the defendant’s packagings. If the


plaintiff is the owner of the copyright by virtue of her being in the photograph
or image, then the other two women will also be the owners of the copyright in
the photograph or image. However they are not parties to this suit and the
plaintiff has not established that they have assigned their rights to her or have
B agreed to her to take up this suit against the defendant for infringement of the
copyright purportedly jointly owned by them with the plaintiff.

[18] The plaintiff has exhibited a letter from the Sabah Tourism Board to
state that the board did not release the photograph or image which was
C
published in a book by the board called ‘Cultures, Customs and Traditions of
Sabah, Malaysia An Introduction’ in 1992 to any third party for any
commercial purposes and did not receive any request or permission from
anyone to use the photograph or image. This will implicitly mean that the
board is the owner of the copyright or has the permission from the author or
D
owner thereof to publish the photograph or image in the book. That would
effectively exclude the plaintiff to be the owner of the copyright and the right
to sue for infringement of the copyright.

E [19] Neither the plaintiff nor the defendant has identified the photographer
or author of the photograph or image used by the defendant, the plaintiff has
not affirmed any affidavit to say that she has been assigned or owns the
copyright to the photograph or image used by the defendant pursuant to an
agreement with the photographer or author or owner or the Sabah Tourism
F Board and or the organisers of the various beauty pageants in which she took
part during which the photograph or image was taken or produced. The
plaintiff did not exhibit any such agreement or affidavit or declaration to show
that she has been assigned or licensed and is the owner of the copyright in the
photograph or image to entitle her to sue the defendant for infringement of
G copyright.

[20] Section 37(1) of the Act provides that infringements of copyright shall
be actionable at the suit of the owner of the copyright. Since the plaintiff has
not shown that she is the owner of the copyright in the photograph or image
H used by the defendant, she cannot sue and has no locus standi to sue the
defendant for infringements of the copyright: see Ultra Dimension Sdn Bhd v
Ketua Pengarah, Lembaga Penggalakan Pelancongan Malaysia & Ors [2010] 8
CLJ 245.

I [21] Next it was submitted that privacy rights is not recognised under the
English common law, citing the case of Ultra Dimension Sdn Bhd v Kook Wei
Kuan [2001] MLJU 751; [2004] 5 CLJ 285 where it was held that English
common law does not recognise privacy rights; therefore invasion of privacy
rights does not give rise to a cause of action. However, that case went on to say
306 Malayan Law Journal [2014] 7 MLJ

that there is an exception (at p 290), a cause of action may only arise if the A
photographs were highly offensive in nature and showed a person in an
embarrassing position or pose and then (at p 292) that the photograph in that
case was not a piece of confidential information as the appellant did not receive
it from the respondent. English law has previously classified it as a breach of
confidentiality between the intruder and the victim. In Hellewell v Chief B
Constable of Derbyshire [1995] 1 WLR 804, Laws J at p 807 said:
If someone with a telephoto lens were to take from a distance and with no authority
a picture of another engaged in some private act, his subsequent disclosure of the
photograph would, in my judgment, as surely amount to a breach of confidence as C
if he had found or stolen a letter or diary in which the act was recounted and
proceeded to publish it. In such a case, the law would protect what might reasonably
be called a right of privacy, although the name accorded to the cause of action would
be breach of confidence. It is, of course, elementary that, in all such cases, a defence
based on the public interest would be available.
D

[22] In Douglas v Hello! Ltd [2001] 2 WLR 992, although the case was not
pleaded and it was not decided on the question of invasion of privacy, Sedley LJ
observed that ‘what a concept of privacy does, however, is accord recognition to
the fact that the law has to protect not only people whose trust has been abused E
but those who simply find themselves subjected to an unwanted intrusion into
their personal lives. The law no longer needs to construct an artificial
relationship of confidentiality between intruder and victim: it can recognise
privacy itself as a legal principle drawn from the fundamental value of personal
autonomy’. On appeal in related suits, the House of Lords decided the appeals F
on breach of contract and confidentiality and did not to extend the common
law to include the tort of privacy: OBG Ltd v Allan; Douglas v Hello! Ltd (No 3);
Mainstream Properties v Young [2008] 1 AC 1.

[23] Similarly, in Australian Broadcasting Corp v Lenah Game Meats Pty Ltd G
[2001] HCA 63 the High Court of Australia declined to declare that invasion
of privacy is a new tort. Gleeson CJ said that the lack of precision of the concept
of privacy is a reason for caution in declaring that it is a new tort and went on
to say that certain kinds of information about a person, such as information
relating to health, personal relationships, or finances, may be easy to identify as H
private; as may certain kinds of activity, which a reasonable person, applying
contemporary standards of morals and behavior, would understand to be
meant to be unobserved. The requirement that the disclosure or observation of
information or conduct would be highly offensive to a reasonable person of
ordinary sensibilities is in many circumstances a useful practical test of what is I
private.

[24] In Malaysia, the law on the invasion of privacy has developed since then.
It is desirable especially in this internet era of Facebook and Youtube where lives
Sherinna Nur Elena bt Abdullah v Kent Well Edar Sdn Bhd
[2014] 7 MLJ (Stephen Chung JC) 307

A can be destroyed by such unwanted invasion of privacy. The High Court at


Penang allowed such a claim for invasion of privacy in the case of Lee Ewe Poh
v Dr Lim Teik Man & Anor [2011] 1 MLJ 835; [2010] 1 LNS 1162 where it was
held that a surgeon must obtain the consent of their female patients before
taking photographs of their intimate parts during surgical procedures.
B Although that case can be categorised as a breach of trust and confidentiality
because of the doctor-patient relationship, the High Court expressly allowed
the plaintiff ’s claim which, inter alia, pleaded an invasion of her rights to
privacy.

C [25] I also refer to the case of Maslinda bt Ishak v Mohd Tahir bin Osman &
Ors [2009] 6 MLJ 826; [2009] 6 CLJ 653. The appellant in that case was
awarded damages for invasion of her privacy in the High Court. Although the
appeal was on the issue of vicarious liability, the Court of Appeal did not
overrule or reverse the High Court on the question of invasion of privacy. The
D Court of Appeal in that case implicitly recognised the plaintiff ’s rights to
privacy.

[26] Although the plaintiff is at liberty to sue the defendant for invasion of
her privacy, in the instant case the defendant did not intrude onto private
E property and took the photographs of the plaintiff without her consent. The
photographs were taken many years ago by someone else at beauty pageants
where she participated willingly as a contestant and in public. It was not a
private affair on a private property. The photographs as exhibited were also not
offensive. The plaintiff did not complain then that she had been humiliated or
F ridiculed or scandalised by the photograph or image.

[27] From her affidavits, these pageants were reported and the photographs
were published in the local newspapers. The particular photograph or image
G
which the plaintiff complained was an invasion of her privacy was also
published in the book by the Sabah Tourism Board in 1992. It was reproduced
by the defendant on its products. These photographs are in the public domain
and cannot amount to an invasion of her privacy.

H [28] On the affidavit evidence before the court, to allow the action to
proceed to trial will amount to an abuse of the process of the court. The court
has an inherent jurisdiction to prevent an abuse of its process. For the reasons
given the plaintiff ’s action is dismissed with costs to the defendant, if not
agreed to be taxed.
I
308 Malayan Law Journal [2014] 7 MLJ

Application by defendant allowed and plaintiff ’s claim dismissed with costs. A

Reported by Afiq Mohamad Noor